This also corrects the description to match what was actually implemented. The old comment said X^(C1|C2), but it implemented X^((C1|C2)&~(C1&C2)). I believe ((C1|C2)&~(C1&C2)) is equivalent to (C1^C2).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36505
llvm-svn: 310658
We used to try to truncate the constant vector to vXi1, but if it's already i1 this would fail. Instead we now use IRBuilder::getZExtOrTrunc which should check the type and only create a trunc if needed. I believe this should trigger constant folding in the IRBuilder and ultimately do the same thing just with the additional type check.
llvm-svn: 310639
Note the original code I deleted incorrectly listed this as (X | C1) & C2 --> (X & C2^(C1&C2)) | C1 Which is only valid if C1 is a subset of C2. This relied on SimplifyDemandedBits to remove any extra bits from C1 before we got to that code.
My new implementation avoids relying on that behavior so that it can be naively verified with alive.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36384
llvm-svn: 310272
Summary:
If one side simplifies to the identity value for inner opcode, we can replace the value with just the operation that can't be simplified.
I've removed a couple now unneeded special cases in visitAnd and visitOr. There are probably other cases I missed.
Reviewers: spatel, majnemer, hfinkel, dberlin
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: grandinj, llvm-commits, spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35451
llvm-svn: 308111
We can simplify (or (icmp X, C1), (icmp X, C2)) to 'true' or one of the icmps in many cases.
I had to check some of these with Alive to prove to myself it's right, but everything seems
to check out. Eg, the deleted code in instcombine was completely ignoring predicates with
mismatched signedness.
This is a follow-up to:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL301260https://reviews.llvm.org/D32143
llvm-svn: 302370
This is a straight cut and paste, but there's a bigger problem: if this
fold exists for simplifyOr, there should be a DeMorganized version for
simplifyAnd. But more than that, we have a patchwork of ad hoc logic
optimizations in InstCombine. There should be some structure to ensure
that we're not missing sibling folds across and/or/xor.
llvm-svn: 301213
This is effectively a retry of:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL299851
but now we have tests and an assert to make sure the bug
that was exposed with that attempt will not happen again.
I'll fix the code duplication and missing sibling fold next,
but I want to make this change as small as possible to reduce
risk since I messed it up last time.
This should fix:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32524
llvm-svn: 300236
If we had these tests, the bug caused by https://reviews.llvm.org/rL299851 would have been caught sooner.
There's also an assert in the code that should have caught that bug, but the assert line itself has a bug.
llvm-svn: 300201
Also, make the same change in and-of-icmps and remove a hack for detecting that case.
Finally, add some FIXME comments because the code duplication here is awful.
This should fix the remaining IR problem noted in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32524
llvm-svn: 299851
Currently we only fold with ConstantInt RHS. This generalizes to any Constant RHS.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31610
llvm-svn: 299466
The code comments didn't match the code logic, and we didn't actually distinguish the fake unary (not/neg/fneg)
operators from arguments. Adding another level to the weighting scheme provides more structure and can help
simplify the pattern matching in InstCombine and other places.
I fixed regressions that would have shown up from this change in:
rL290067
rL290127
But that doesn't mean there are no pattern-matching logic holes left; some combines may just be missing regression tests.
Should fix:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28296
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27933
llvm-svn: 294049
Background/motivation - I was circling back around to:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28296
I made a simple patch for that and noticed some regressions, so added test cases for
those with rL281055, and this is hopefully the minimal fix for just those cases.
But as you can see from the surrounding untouched folds, we are missing commuted patterns
all over the place, and of course there are no regression tests to cover any of those cases.
We could sprinkle "m_c_" dust all over this file and catch most of the missing folds, but
then we still wouldn't have test coverage, and we'd still miss some fraction of commuted
patterns because they require adjustments to the match order.
I'm aware of the concern about the potential compile-time performance impact of adding
matches like this (currently being discussed on llvm-dev), but I don't think there's any
evidence yet to suggest that handling commutative pattern matching more thoroughly is not
a worthwhile goal of InstCombine.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24419
llvm-svn: 290067
I was looking to fix a bug in getComplexity(), and these cases showed up as
obvious failures. I'm not sure how to find these in general though.
llvm-svn: 281055
Essentially the same as the GEP change in r230786.
A similar migration script can be used to update test cases, though a few more
test case improvements/changes were required this time around: (r229269-r229278)
import fileinput
import sys
import re
pat = re.compile(r"((?:=|:|^)\s*load (?:atomic )?(?:volatile )?(.*?))(| addrspace\(\d+\) *)\*($| *(?:%|@|null|undef|blockaddress|getelementptr|addrspacecast|bitcast|inttoptr|\[\[[a-zA-Z]|\{\{).*$)")
for line in sys.stdin:
sys.stdout.write(re.sub(pat, r"\1, \2\3*\4", line))
Reviewers: rafael, dexonsmith, grosser
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7649
llvm-svn: 230794
We may be in a situation where the icmps might not be near each other in
a tree of or instructions. Try to dig out related compare instructions
and see if they combine.
N.B. This won't fire on deep trees of compares because rewritting the
tree might end up creating a net increase of IR. We may have to resort
to something more sophisticated if this is a real problem.
llvm-svn: 222928
"((~A & B) | A) -> (A | B)" and "((A & B) | ~A) -> (~A | B)"
Original Patch credit to Ankit Jain !!
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4591
llvm-svn: 213676
This update was done with the following bash script:
find test/Transforms -name "*.ll" | \
while read NAME; do
echo "$NAME"
if ! grep -q "^; *RUN: *llc" $NAME; then
TEMP=`mktemp -t temp`
cp $NAME $TEMP
sed -n "s/^define [^@]*@\([A-Za-z0-9_]*\)(.*$/\1/p" < $NAME | \
while read FUNC; do
sed -i '' "s/;\(.*\)\([A-Za-z0-9_]*\):\( *\)@$FUNC\([( ]*\)\$/;\1\2-LABEL:\3@$FUNC(/g" $TEMP
done
mv $TEMP $NAME
fi
done
llvm-svn: 186268
One performs: (X == 13 | X == 14) -> X-13 <u 2
The other: (A == C1 || A == C2) -> (A & ~(C1 ^ C2)) == C1
The problem is that there are certain values of C1 and C2 that
trigger both transforms but the first one blocks out the second,
this generates suboptimal code.
Reordering the transforms should be better in every case and
allows us to do interesting stuff like turn:
%shr = lshr i32 %X, 4
%and = and i32 %shr, 15
%add = add i32 %and, -14
%tobool = icmp ne i32 %add, 0
into:
%and = and i32 %X, 240
%tobool = icmp ne i32 %and, 224
llvm-svn: 179493
(or (bool?A:B),(bool?C:D)) --> (bool?(or A,C):(or B,D))
By the time the OR is visited, both the SELECTs have been visited and not
optimized and the OR itself hasn't been transformed so we do this transform in
the hopes that the new ORs will be optimized.
The transform is explicitly disabled for vector-selects until "codegen matures
to handle them better".
Patch by Muhammad Tauqir!
llvm-svn: 175380
Roman Lebedev